State v. Lechner

Decision Date26 September 2019
Docket NumberCase No. 19CA3
Citation2019 Ohio 4071
PartiesSTATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DENNIS WAYNE LECHNER, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

APPEARANCES:

James A. Anzelmo, Anzelmo Law, Gahanna, Ohio, for Appellant.

Anneka P. Collins, Highland County Prosecutor, Hillsboro, Ohio, for Appellee.

Smith, P.J.

{¶1} Appellant, Dennis Lechner, appeals his conviction and sentence for Felonious Assault, a second-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1). On appeal, he contends 1) that his speedy trial rights were violated in contravention of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; 2) that the trial court erred in finding that he was competent to stand trial; 3) that the trial court improperly required him to prove self-defense; 4) that his conviction is based upon insufficient evidence; 5) that his conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence; and 6) that the trial court erred in imposing sentence upon him. Because we have found no merit to any of the assignments of error raised by Appellant, the decision of the trial court is affirmed.

FACTS

{¶2} Appellant was charged with one count of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11 on August 25, 2017. The charge stemmed from an incident that occurred on August 17, 2017, at the residence of Lisa Garcia, Appellant's sister and victim herein. The affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint alleged Garcia and her brother, Neil Hurt, got into a physical altercation when Garcia ordered Hurt and his girlfriend to leave her property. Immediately thereafter, when Garcia was having a conversation with her mother and daughter regarding the fact that Hurt and his girlfriend needed to leave her property, Garcia's other brother, Appellant, started yelling at her. The affidavit alleges that when Garcia ordered Appellant to leave and not return, Appellant struck her on the left side of her face. Garcia called the police and was taken to Highland District Hospital. She was thereafter transferred to Miami Valley Hospital for further treatment. The affidavit further alleged Garcia sustained a closed orbital fracture and closed maxillary sinus fracture.

{¶3} Appellant was not arrested on the charge until November 29, 2017. On December 12, 2017, Appellant filed a waiver of speedy trial time and also filed a motion to determine whether he was competent to stand trial. Appellant was thereafter evaluated and determined incompetent to stand trial on January 10, 2018. The matter was placed on the inactive docket and Appellant was institutionalized for treatment until May 1, 2018, when all parties stipulated that he had been returned to competency. Appellant thereafter waived his right to a preliminary hearing and the matter was bound over to the grand jury.

{¶4} On June 5, 2018, Appellant was indicted on one count of felonious assault, a second-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1). He pled not guilty to the charge and the matter proceeded through the discovery process. Then, on July 19, 2018, Appellant's trial counsel requested a second competency evaluation. The trial court scheduled an evaluation and again placed the matter on the inactive docket. A competency hearing was held on August 24, 2018, at which time the trial court determined Appellant was both competent at the time he committed the offense and was competent to stand trial. Shortly thereafter, on September 20, 2018, Appellant filed a motion to dismiss based upon speedy trial grounds. The trial court denied Appellant's motion on October 31, 2018, and the matter proceeded to a jury trial on December 13, 2018.

{¶5} The victim, Lisa Garcia, and her daughter, Makenzie Beckelheimer, both testified on behalf of the State. Garcia testified that Appellant hit her on the left side of her face with a closed fist, causing her nose, eye and mouth to bleed. Garcia also identified several medical records and photographs depicting her injuries that were entered into evidence. She testified that she did not hit Appellant first or put her hands on him at all. She further testified that she still suffers from pain and headaches as a result of her injuries. Makenzie Beckelheimer testified she was present when her mother was assaulted by Appellant. She testified that Appellant punched her mother in the face. Melanie Nuse, a nurse practitioner with Miami Valley Emergency Specialists, also testified regarding Garcia's injuries and explained that the injuries suffered by Garcia are commonly suffered by someone who has been hit in the face.

{¶6} Appellant testified on his own behalf and claimed that Garcia pulled a gun on him, leading him to throw his hand back and causing the gun to hit her in the face. He denied striking Garcia. In response, the State called Garcia and Beckelheimer as rebuttal witnesses. Both denied Appellant's version of events and testified that Garcia did not have a gun at the time of the incident.

{¶7} The matter was submitted to the jury for deliberation and the jury instructions included an instruction on self-defense. The jury ultimately found Appellant guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Appellant to a seven-year prison term. It is from the trial court's final judgment entry of confinement that Appellant now brings his timely appeal, setting forth six assignments of error for our review.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

I. "LECHNER'S SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION."

II. "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT LECHNER WAS COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL, IN VIOLATION OF THIS [SIC] DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION."

III. "THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY REQUIRED LECHNER TO PROVE SELF-DEFENSE, IN VIOLATION OF THE SECOND, FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION."

IV. "LECHNER'S CONVICTION IS BASED ON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND SECTIONS 10 & 16, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION."

V. "LECHNER'S CONVICTION IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND SECTIONS 10 & 16, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION."

VI. "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT SENTENCED LECHNER, IN VIOLATION OF HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND SECTION SIXTEEN, ARTICLE ONE OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION."

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

{¶8} In his first assignment of error, Appellant contends that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated. He argues that initial charges were filed against him in August of 2017, but he was not brought to trial until over one year later in December of 2018. As a result, he contends he was presumptively prejudiced from the delay, and he argues the delay infringed upon his rights to a speedy trial. In response, the State notes that although charges were filed against Appellant on August 25, 2017, he was not arrested on the offense until November 29, 2017. The State also argues speedy trial time was extended by various tolling events, including Appellant's incompetency to stand trial for a period of time.

{¶9} A review of the record below indicates Appellant filed a motion to dismiss based upon speedy trial grounds prior to his scheduled trial, which was denied by the trial court. Appellate review of a trial court's decision on a motion to dismiss for a violation of the speedy trial requirements presents a mixed question of law and fact. State v. James, 4th Dist. Ross No. 13CA3393, 2014-Ohio-1702, ¶ 23; State v. Brown, 131 Ohio App.3d 387, 391, 722 N.E.2d 594 (4th Dist. 1998). Thus, appellate courts will defer to a trial court's findings of fact as long as competent, credible evidence supports them. Brown at 391. Appellate courts then independently determine whether the trial court properly applied the law to the facts. Id. "Furthermore, when reviewing the legal issues presented in a speedy trial claim, we must strictly construe the relevant statutes against the state." Id., citing Brecksville v. Cook, 75 Ohio St.3d 53, 57, 661 N.E.2d 706 (1996). Here, the trial court filed a six-page decision denying Appellant's motion to dismiss, which included findings of facts. The trial court's decision included an analysis of elapsed speedy trial days, taking into considering the triple count provision, as well as tolling events which extended speedy trial time. The trial court ultimately concluded one hundred forty-three days remained for speedy trial purposes at the time Appellant's motion to dismiss was filed. As such, the trial court denied the motion.

{¶10} Appellant now argues on appeal that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees an accused in a criminal prosecution the right to a speedy trial. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes this provision applicable to the states. Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 87 S.Ct. 988, 18 L.Ed.2d 1 (1967). In analyzing whether an accused has been denied the constitutional right to a speedy trial, a court must consider four factors: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the accused's assertion of his right; and (4) prejudice to the accused. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). None of these four factors is per se determinative of whether an accused suffered a violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Id. at 532. Instead, the court must consider the factors collectively. Id.

{¶11} The United States Supreme Court has recognized that the first factor, length of the delay, involves a double inquiry. Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 651, 112 S.Ct. 2686, 120 L.Ed.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT